The Bethesda Softworks Forums have a thread on a new utility for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim claiming to offer framerate improvements of up to 40% on CPU-constrained systems (thanks Acleacius). Here's the skinny:

This patch will improve your frame rate by up to 40% in all CPU-dependent situations, i.e. especially in cities. It works mostly by rewriting some x87 FPU code and inlining a whole ton of useless getter functions along the critical paths because the developers at Bethesda, for some reason, compiled the game without using any of the optimization flags for release builds.

There has been some confusion about the original dll file and the current one for Script dragon. Script Dragon's dinput8.dll is 592kb The non working TESV Accelerator dinput.dll is 74kb

Scroll bars are just an element of a UI, not the entirety of it. I think you're kind of missing my point, and we're getting into a in a forest through the trees thing here.

The point is that Skyrim requires a lot of scrolling, yet provides none of the UI functionality do it quickly and efficiently on PC. No scroll bars, no sorting, no PgUp/PgDn/Home/End support, nothing. If you want to scroll, you either have to hold down a key or use the mousewheel. The lack of PC-centric scrolling functionality is no doubt a result of the UI being designed for gamepads, not M/KB.

I worded that poorly; I meant that Morrowind was the last game theuy had that had a different UI; all the others have been fairly derivative of each other since then.

Oblivion and FO3 had somewhat similar (and equally atrocious) UI but Skyrim's is all-new and takes the cake for being the slowest and least efficient.

Some, but admittedly not a lot. I'm not really disagreeing with you that the UI could use polish, I am, however, disagreeing that the UI needs to be inherently different (barring mouse support) across platforms.

Scroll bars would be nice. They'd also be a PC-exclusive feature, given their lack of utility with a gamepad. PgUp/PgDn/Home/End and sorting support would be nice too. Smaller text would also be helpful, as I don't sit 8 feet away from my monitor. There are many things you can do with M/KB that you can't do with a gamepad and UI needs to be designed around these things in order to maximize speed and efficiency. That's not what happened with Skyrim. The UI was designed for gamepads and people sitting 8 feet away from their HDTV.

No, what I'm saying is that they should put the same amount of effort into ALL platforms, and not bias one over the other.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, that's not what happens in multiplatform development. The lead platform receives the bulk of attention, while the secondary platforms are just ports. That's why Skyrim's UI doesn't have any PC-centric features except for rudimentary M/KB support and more hotkeys.

I personally like the heiarchial minimalist approach. You don't. It's subjective based on preference.

I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about functionality. Scroll bars, for example, are a common feature of Windows, MacOS, Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome, etc, because it's considered standard. Skyrim does not have scroll bars, in spite of the amount of scrolling you have to do...

Scroll bars are just an element of a UI, not the entirety of it. I think you're kind of missing my point, and we're getting into a in a forest through the trees thing here.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:

Again, preference. I might like having something completely different than you describe, like, say, a graphical representation of my player-character that I can drag and drop items onto, or maybe a CLI where I just type out what I want to equip. Does that make one bad over the other? Not really. It just makes them different. Bethesda has had this interface since Morrowind, and, well, I guess I've just grown accustomed to it.

Err, Morrowind had a completely different UI than any games since. It was icon-based, whereas the later games revolve around text lists. But again, if you're going to have text lists, you need to provide users with a way to quickly navigate them. Skyrim doesn't do that.

I worded that poorly; I meant that Morrowind was the last game theuy had that had a different UI; all the others have been fairly derivative of each other since then.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:

Why? I mean why make it different across platforms when it functionally serves it's purpose? We're not talking about forcing a gamepad here. the mouse and scrollwheel works. that said, I actually use WASD + E (R, Y/N) without even thinking about it. *shrug*

Because it's not just a matter of being functional. It's a matter of functioning well. According to your logic, players should be happy if games merely run, as opposed to being any good.

Out of curiosity, do you do a lot of alchemy in the game? If you do and you haven't noticed the ridiculous amount of scrolling required, I'm not sure what to say.

Some, but admittedly not a lot. I'm not really disagreeing with you that the UI could use polish, I am, however, disagreeing that the UI needs to be inherently different (barring mouse support) across platforms.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 01:34:

Again, no matter what they release, an element of the gaming population is going to think that it's utter crap, so, why waste more time on it when you know what you have works, provides little/zero risk of a platform-specific problem, and, for the most part, looks exactly like the UI of the last several RPGs you've put out?

Because it results in a better product for the specific platform? What you're basically saying is that developers should put no effort into their PC ports.

No, what I'm saying is that they should put the same amount of effort into ALL platforms, and not bias one over the other. While most of what you say I agree with in principle, all platforms would benefit from same/similar changes.

Despite your claims, the process is different after release than before release. Hence why I say a port is after the fact.Before release the engine is still relatively open to change (this obviously wanes in direct ratio to a looming deadline). Before release all the source files are easily.. sourced, and converted to the next platform.Developing for multiple platforms is easier than 'porting.'

Changes will always have to be made to the engine to make it compatible with different platforms. X360, PS3 and PC typically use different renderers, for example. Again, this doesn't change whether you start the port during or after development.

As for source material, the people handling ports get access to the assets, tools and source code for the games they are porting. Again, this doesn't change regardless of when the port is developed. The only benefit of porting during development is that you have the original artists, designers, scripters and programmers handling the port, so they're more familiar with the code and assets and can make changes more quickly. That said, it doesn't take that long for a third-party developer to acclimate. You act like third-party developers only have access to a retail copy of the game.

Artists will produce textures at higher resolutions before shrinking them down. At least good artists will. Especially if the game supports multiple platforms.

In an ideal world, yes. Ideally, all textures would be designed for 4096x4096 and the PC versions of multiplatform games would actually use these textures. But that's not how development works. Most textures are designed for 1024x1024, with 2048x2048 sometimes being used for characters. Why? Because these are the resolutions that will be used in the console versions. Programmers tell artists what resolutions to use because it would be a waste of time to create super high-res art that only one out of three platforms would actually show at full resolution.

Developing for multiple platforms is easier than 'porting.'

In terms of workload, porting a game that's already been released is actually easier, since you typically only have to handle one platform as opposed to three. Conversely, multiplatform development is not easy at all, as developers have to create, test and stabilize multiple builds for each milestone and regular QA deliveries. That essentially triples the workload for programmers and in many cases, artists and level designers who have to make changes to overcome memory limitations. As I mentioned earlier, having the original developers make these changes is more convenient but that doesn't offset the workload imposed by having to work on three builds instead of just one.

No, There are good ports too. Plenty, in fact (the Valve games on 360 come to mind). I'm not 'associating' anything with 'negative things'.

I'm associating port with a definition, and disagreeing with your definition.Calling any game a port based on the user interface (which is originally what started this back and forth) is asinine. This isn't about one game and it's not some fanboism. You can leave that at the door please and thank you..

I get where you're coming from. But I don't agree that 'port' means any and all conversions.

Port means rebuilt after release, or conversion after release. Not conversion during construction.If the meaning has changed, someone should let Websters know.Oh wait, the word isn't even officially recognized as such, so this whole argument is flawed from the get go.

Despite your claims, the process is different after release than before release. Hence why I say a port is after the fact.Before release the engine is still relatively open to change (this obviously wanes in direct ratio to a looming deadline). Before release all the source files are easily.. sourced, and converted to the next platform.Developing for multiple platforms is easier than 'porting.'

Artists will produce textures at higher resolutions before shrinking them down. At least good artists will. Especially if the game supports multiple platforms.

Putting a PC wrapper around 360 code and calling it a day isn't a port. It's just sloppy business, poor taste and a sad reason not to buy a game from id Software.

How do you figure? It's easier and better for quality if the textures are generated at a high resolution then scaled down for each platform as necessary.Nobody is going to generate a 128x128 and scale it up to save memory, that doesn't make sense at all. Your larger image file still takes more memory and now it looks like fuzzy garbage.

I think you misunderstood. Artists aren't going to design 4096x4096 textures when they know the game won't render them at that resolution. Making a texture look good at 4096x4096 is a completely different matter than making it look good at 1024x1024, which is why multiplatform artists design for the lower resolution. There's no point in putting in lots of detail when it's all going to get blurred out anyway. The PC version, like the console versions, will use the 1024x1024 textures. That's why most of the textures in Skyrim are so low-res. This mentality doesn't change regardless of when the port is developed.

This isn't an emotional issue, it's a semantics issue. Porting is Rebuilding.

Ports happen after release, not during development.If they're developing in tandem, there's no point in porting anything, because they're still developing it.You can't 'port' something that isn't finished.

You do realize that the process of rebuilding code and assets for different platforms remains the same regardless of when you do it, right? It's exactly the same whether you do it while the game is still in development or after.

I do believe this to be an emotional issue for you, as you've clearly taken offense to the labeling of Skyrim as a port. That, and your definition completely defies all logic.

Here are the facts:

1) The process of rebuilding code and assets for different platforms is the same regardless of whether you do it during development or after.2) The PC versions of multiplatform games suffer from all the same limitations and bottlenecks as ports with delayed releases.3) Unless each platform receives a completely unique version of the game, then only one platform can be the lead and the lead platform is what the developers focus on.4) The point of multiplatform development is to maximize your potential audience at minimal extra cost. Designing a unique game for each platform that takes full advantage of the platform's capabilities and its audience's expectations is not cost effective. Designing a game for one platform and then porting it with minimal changes to other platforms is cost effective.

Given the above facts, your definition of "port" is completely illogical. The only possible explanation is that you take offense to the word and thus refuse to have it attached to games you enjoy. To support this belief, I present to you Exhibit A from your initial post in this debate:

I hate to admit it, but even Rage wasn't a port. It was just so sloppy it may as well have been a port.

That statement makes it pretty clear that you associate "port" with negative things.

Tanto Edge wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 20:12:The textures are all higher resolution on PC than any other platform.

Errr....? If it hadn't been for Rage taking the all-time shitty textures crown, there'd have been a billion angry rants about the absolutely horrible texture quality in Skyrim. Default Skyrim textures are easily worse than they were in Oblivion... :|

According to whom? Lens of Truth?Still doesn't make Skyrim a port. And I'm comparing quality between platforms for the sake of argument. Besides, Skyrim looks better than Oblivion to me. Maybe it's just people's opinions in colour palette

I'm not interested in proving that the textures were made with PC, 360 or PS3 in mind. My original point thereby was that they unify resources for efficiency of development, thereby establishing that port is not a term that applies hereby.

Tanto Edge wrote on Dec 28, 2011, 20:12:The textures are all higher resolution on PC than any other platform.

Errr....? If it hadn't been for Rage taking the all-time shitty textures crown, there'd have been a billion angry rants about the absolutely horrible texture quality in Skyrim. Default Skyrim textures are easily worse than they were in Oblivion...

Any developer will tell you that scaling down while maintaining quality is a lot harder than scaling up.

How do you figure? It's easier and better for quality if the textures are generated at a high resolution then scaled down for each platform as necessary.Nobody is going to generate a 128x128 and scale it up to save memory, that doesn't make sense at all. Your larger image file still takes more memory and now it looks like fuzzy garbage.

Nobody in their right mind is going to produce art strictly to be displayed at full resolution, no game does that. Maybe I'm not understanding what you meant, but all textures are mapped to the capabilities of the hardware either at runtime or beforehand. Nobody is going to scale textures in realtime, that's what mipmaps are for.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you dislike the term "port" because it implies that the PC version was bottlenecked by the console versions, right? And that the PC version was simply an afterthought?

This isn't an emotional issue, it's a semantics issue. Porting is Rebuilding.

Ports happen after release, not during development.If they're developing in tandem, there's no point in porting anything, because they're still developing it.You can't 'port' something that isn't finished.

Are there developers who port their games after finishing them for one platform prior to release? Absolutely! I don't disagree therein.I should clarify because I think I may have stated (illogically) that release alone defines this.

The graphics are shared across platforms? So be it. Doesn't mean the game's a port.

Out of curiosity, do you think the textures are designed for PC and then downscaled to fit on consoles? Or do you think that they're designed for consoles to begin with?

Any developer will tell you that scaling down while maintaining quality is a lot harder than scaling up. That's why most multiplatform games are designed for consoles and then ported to PC (during development), where you have much faster hardware to work with. You use lowest common denominator as the baseline, which in this case is consoles. That's why the PC versions of multiplatform games are ports 99% of the time. Very rarely is PC the lead platform because it's pretty hard trying to make a PC game run well and look good on console hardware. It isn't practical to set a high baseline when you know you won't be able to reach it with two out of three platforms.

For example, let's say a developer is working on a big-budget, high-end PC exclusive and that the character textures are all 4096x4096. Artists will work under the assumption that the game will show the textures at their full resolution. Now, let's say a publisher jumps in about halfway through the dev cycle and insists on an X360 and PS3 version. Uh oh. There's no way you can fit 4096x4096 into those consoles' paltry 512MB (system + video combined) limit. All of a sudden you have to downres the textures to 1024x1024, resulting in a blurry and pixelated mess. You basically have to redo all the character textures now if you want to make the console versions look good. On the other hand, if you had designed the textures for 1024x1024 to begin with, you wouldn't be having this problem. You don't have to worry about the PC running out of VRAM or anything and the textures in the PC version are guaranteed to look at least as good as the console versions. For most developers, that's more than enough and that's why consoles are almost always the lead platform in multiplatform games.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you dislike the term "port" because it implies that the PC version was bottlenecked by the console versions, right? And that the PC version was simply an afterthought? Even if we accept your definition of "port," PC versions of multiplatform games still suffer from those very same issues. Skyrim's UI and low-res textures are a testament to that fact.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:15:Except it isn't just semantics. You're using the wrong word. It's like calling an apple an orange. Completely different things. When you take the code and assets from one build and convert them into a functional build on a different platform, that's a port. It doesn't matter when the port is released. It only matters which build was the original/lead.

Yeah, it is just semantics. Calling something a port, when it shares the same resources is like arguing that it's an orange because it's an apple crammed inside an orange peel. Yes I understand a conversion is a port, but you're trying to tell me that it's a port even though it was developed at the same time.I don't agree with that definition of a port, end of story.

The game wasn't converted to PC.The graphics are shared across platforms? So be it. Doesn't mean the game's a port.Same UI across all platforms? Fine. Doesn't make the game a port.Christ, if the games audio is running at 22500 and PC supports much higher, do we cry port because the game can run on a 360 with a minimal wrapper?It's not a port.

I personally like the heiarchial minimalist approach. You don't. It's subjective based on preference.

I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about functionality. Scroll bars, for example, are a common feature of Windows, MacOS, Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome, etc, because it's considered standard. Skyrim does not have scroll bars, in spite of the amount of scrolling you have to do.

Again, preference. I might like having something completely different than you describe, like, say, a graphical representation of my player-character that I can drag and drop items onto, or maybe a CLI where I just type out what I want to equip. Does that make one bad over the other? Not really. It just makes them different. Bethesda has had this interface since Morrowind, and, well, I guess I've just grown accustomed to it.

Err, Morrowind had a completely different UI than any games since. It was icon-based, whereas the later games revolve around text lists. But again, if you're going to have text lists, you need to provide users with a way to quickly navigate them. Skyrim doesn't do that.

Why? I mean why make it different across platforms when it functionally serves it's purpose? We're not talking about forcing a gamepad here. the mouse and scrollwheel works. that said, I actually use WASD + E (R, Y/N) without even thinking about it. *shrug*

Because it's not just a matter of being functional. It's a matter of functioning well. According to your logic, players should be happy if games merely run, as opposed to being any good.

Out of curiosity, do you do a lot of alchemy in the game? If you do and you haven't noticed the ridiculous amount of scrolling required, I'm not sure what to say.

Again, no matter what they release, an element of the gaming population is going to think that it's utter crap, so, why waste more time on it when you know what you have works, provides little/zero risk of a platform-specific problem, and, for the most part, looks exactly like the UI of the last several RPGs you've put out?

Because it results in a better product for the specific platform? What you're basically saying is that developers should put no effort into their PC ports.

I understand and respect your thoughts, but I think that UI is, at best, very subjective, and I can totally relate to their decision to just make the UIs consistent across platforms. In some ways I appreciate this, as I have a few of these games on PC and 360.

I don't think good UI is really subjective at all. The point of UI is to provide a means for the user to interact with the software. Ideally, these interactions should be as quick and intuitive as possible. In essence, if a UI is doing its job well, the player will never have anything to say about it because they don't even notice it. It meets all their expectations and gives them no reason to be frustrated or annoyed. It is essentially invisible.

I personally like the heiarchial minimalist approach. You don't. It's subjective based on preference.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:Skyrim's UI does not achieve this. There is redundant scrolling in almost every menu, due to the focus on aesthetics rather than functionality. And with all this excessive scrolling, basic things like scroll bars and sorting are sorely missed. Then there's an 8 hotkey limit, even though keyboards have 10 number keys. Then there's the fact that players have to mark items/spells as favorites before they can be assigned hotkeys.

Again, preference. I might like having something completely different than you describe, like, say, a graphical representation of my player-character that I can drag and drop items onto, or maybe a CLI where I just type out what I want to equip. Does that make one bad over the other? Not really. It just makes them different. Bethesda has had this interface since Morrowind, and, well, I guess I've just grown accustomed to it.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:Finally, UI should never be consistent across platforms when one of those platforms is PC. M/KB is a completely different control scheme than a gamepad. PC users typically sit much closer to the screen than console users as well. These are significant considerations that should be made when porting a game to PC and if you ignore them, you are disrespecting the PC platform and those who game on it.

Why? I mean why make it different across platforms when it functionally serves it's purpose? We're not talking about forcing a gamepad here. the mouse and scrollwheel works. that said, I actually use WASD + E (R, Y/N) without even thinking about it. *shrug*

Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2011, 06:08:

I mean, why make a special UI if you know people will still complain. Let's be honest here--PC gamers are just about impossible to please; we always want more than we get, even if it is exactly what we as for ;-)

That's not really a good philosophy to take. Yes, there will always be people complaining about something. However, that doesn't mean you should automatically discard their complaints. Skyrim's UI is slower and less inefficient than it should be, especially considering the complexity of the game. It has an excessive amount of scrolling, forcing players to spend more time in menus than they should have to. Basic things like scroll bars and sorting would help alleviate this but Bethesda didn't bother because they always put the bare minimum of effort into their PC ports. While I applaud them for releasing mod tools, players shouldn't have to rely on mods to get a decent UI.

Maybe not, but it is the truth.

Again, no matter what they release, an element of the gaming population is going to think that it's utter crap, so, why waste more time on it when you know what you have works, provides little/zero risk of a platform-specific problem, and, for the most part, looks exactly like the UI of the last several RPGs you've put out?

Again, my point here isn't about what the UI should look like, it's that if even you and I have different functionality preferences, then Bethesda has no hope of making both of us happy, never mind the entire gaming community ;-)

^D^

PS: for the record, I freaking hate Android, even though I like my Xoom. I prefer iOS. I like Windows 7 over anything else, but do like elements of OSX. IMO, Linux looks like piss, and while it may be powerful (and I do use it), it is about as user friendly as a chainsaw to the wrists (regardless of the distro).

Jerykk wrote on Dec 26, 2011, 22:25:According to your logic, the console ports weren't actually ports because they were released at the same time, even though it's pretty obvious that they were ports.

Yep.Again, pure semantics (or hair splitting), but a simple concept.If you're porting the game, it's already been released or developed for one system.

Nobody said you had to agree with that, but defining a port based on UI was my initial topic of debate anyhow.

Except it isn't just semantics. You're using the wrong word. It's like calling an apple an orange. Completely different things. When you take the code and assets from one build and convert them into a functional build on a different platform, that's a port. It doesn't matter when the port is released. It only matters which build was the original/lead.

I understand and respect your thoughts, but I think that UI is, at best, very subjective, and I can totally relate to their decision to just make the UIs consistent across platforms. In some ways I appreciate this, as I have a few of these games on PC and 360.

I don't think good UI is really subjective at all. The point of UI is to provide a means for the user to interact with the software. Ideally, these interactions should be as quick and intuitive as possible. In essence, if a UI is doing its job well, the player will never have anything to say about it because they don't even notice it. It meets all their expectations and gives them no reason to be frustrated or annoyed. It is essentially invisible.

Skyrim's UI does not achieve this. There is redundant scrolling in almost every menu, due to the focus on aesthetics rather than functionality. And with all this excessive scrolling, basic things like scroll bars and sorting are sorely missed. Then there's an 8 hotkey limit, even though keyboards have 10 number keys. Then there's the fact that players have to mark items/spells as favorites before they can be assigned hotkeys.

Finally, UI should never be consistent across platforms when one of those platforms is PC. M/KB is a completely different control scheme than a gamepad. PC users typically sit much closer to the screen than console users as well. These are significant considerations that should be made when porting a game to PC and if you ignore them, you are disrespecting the PC platform and those who game on it.

I mean, why make a special UI if you know people will still complain. Let's be honest here--PC gamers are just about impossible to please; we always want more than we get, even if it is exactly what we as for ;-)

That's not really a good philosophy to take. Yes, there will always be people complaining about something. However, that doesn't mean you should automatically discard their complaints. Skyrim's UI is slower and less inefficient than it should be, especially considering the complexity of the game. It has an excessive amount of scrolling, forcing players to spend more time in menus than they should have to. Basic things like scroll bars and sorting would help alleviate this but Bethesda didn't bother because they always put the bare minimum of effort into their PC ports. While I applaud them for releasing mod tools, players shouldn't have to rely on mods to get a decent UI.

(^Drag0n^ wrote): Adding my $0.02 to this: All that means is that they made a multiplatform UI to ease the workload, and focus on the more important task of development of the actual game as opposed to custom UIs. I like it that way. It's lead to a better game in this case, IMO.

I completely disagree. If you're going to release a game on multiple platforms, you should ensure that each platform gets equal focus. For the PC, this means redesigning the UI as necessary (as Bioware tends to do). Skyrim's UI was clearly designed for gamepads, not M/KB, and even with gamepads, it's slow, clunky and requires an excessive amount of scrolling. Skyrim would be a better game if the UI were better.

I understand and respect your thoughts, but I think that UI is, at best, very subjective, and I can totally relate to their decision to just make the UIs consistent across platforms. In some ways I appreciate this, as I have a few of these games on PC and 360.

Are there things I'd like? Sure. I'd love to be able to hit a letter and have it jump to the first item in the list starting with that letter. I'd like it to not include "the" when sorting books alphabetically. I'd like it to group weapons by Type, and let me be able to sort by enchantment and / or damage.

But it doesn't. So, I'll live with it until a mod comes that adds a UI I like, which is pretty much the purpose that Bethesda gives us the dev tools for anyway.

I mean, why make a special UI if you know people will still complain. Let's be honest here--PC gamers are just about impossible to please; we always want more than we get, even if it is exactly what we as for ;-)

All I'm saying is port or no, this game is just awesome. And what makes it even more so is the fact that the devs let the community have their tools, which only adds to the longevity and the overall value of the game on the PC. Which is why I'll always get (at the very least) the PC version of Bethesda RPG: not just because their games are good, but because Bethesda supports modding better than >98% of everyone else in the industry.

It's nothing specific to Bethesda. It's just how multiplatform development works. The whole point of multiplatform development is to maximize profits at minimal cost by designing a game for one platform, then porting it to other platforms during development so that all versions of the game can be released at the same time. Historically, delayed ports do not sell well so publishers generally try to avoid doing that whenever possible. Hence, multiplatform development.

I agree they could have included a UI for each platform, but let's be honest here:They don't do that. They do the bare minimum because they're not interested in making UI.They're interested in making games, not interfaces. This has always been obvious, since their first games up until now.

Given that games are defined by interaction and that UI is how the player interacts with the game, I'd say they should be more concerned with UI.

The whole 'issue' here is pure semantics, but as far as I'm concerned, a port is after the release, not during development. That's just development.

Your definition doesn't actually make any sense, though. For example, PC was the lead platform for Dragon Age Origins. The PC version was done almost a year before it was actually released, but EA decided to delay it so that the console ports could be released at the same time (because, once again, delayed ports don't sell well). According to your logic, the console ports weren't actually ports because they were released at the same time, even though it's pretty obvious that they were ports.

If you're not the lead platform, you're a port. It doesn't matter when you get released.

I agree they could have included a UI for each platform, but let's be honest here:They don't do that. They do the bare minimum because they're not interested in making UI.They're interested in making games, not interfaces. This has always been obvious, since their first games up until now.

BioWare is out to please everyone. Bethesda is not.

The whole 'issue' here is pure semantics, but as far as I'm concerned, a port is after the release, not during development. That's just development.

Besides, a strong community fixes everything. Look at Vampire: Bloodlines. They fixed so much they made new things to fix, and Troika's been dead for years (*sob*).They've fixed so much that there's now multiple branches of fixes.